In case you haven't heard, President Bush announced the nomination of federal judge Michael Mukasey as his next (and hopefully last) attorney general.

Mukasey was appointed by Ronald Reagan, has a rep as a law and order guy and yet the Dems will probably not oppose him. Why? Because they likely suggested him among others to the White House as being acceptable. Highly unlikely the WH is looking for yet another fight with the Senate and looked for a compromise candidate.

How could Mukasey, a strict law and order guy, a right winger in most things, be a compromise candidate? Well, as a judge in the Jose Padilla case he stood up to the Bush's then AG (that would be Alberto Gonzales) and told them they needed to follow the law in prosecuting people. He was apparently suggested by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and since Schumer would be a key senator in the confirmation process, that is the telling clue.

The fact the WH is avoiding a fight over this nomination is telling as well. They really don't have the forces to take on a unified Dem team but fortunately for them, they don't have to. The national Dems keep backing away from the big fights: defunding the war and/or impeachment because they don't have the votes in the Senate. Maybe they're right but some people think they should try. There's still 16 months of this Administration and so far they have reduced America to being something less than a super power, ravaged the military, the treasury, and can't even clean up after a hurricane. They're so incompetent it boggles the mind but at least they've stopped fighting over the AG. Let's hope this one can restore some professionalism at the Justice Department. It's long overdue.

Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that a former Justice Department lawyer is being investigated as the leaker of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program to the New York Times:

FBI agents searched the home of former Justice Department lawyer Thomas Tamm last week in an effort to determine who leaked details of the warrantless eavesdropping program to the news media, Newsweek magazine reported Sunday, citing two anonymous legal sources. The agents, who had obtained a classified search warrant, took Tamm's desktop computer, two laptops belonging to his children and some of Tamm's personal files, said Newsweek, which granted anonymity to the two sources because they did not want to be identified talking about an open case. Tamm left the department last year. He had worked in the department's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, a secretive unit that oversees surveillance of terrorist and espionage targets, according to Newsweek.

Doing a very quick search at Opensecrets.org, we find the following information about political donations that Mr. Tamm made:

I have to take exception to David's post about this morning's Washington Post article, U.S. Attorney Became Target After Rebuffing Justice Dept. Although I loath to defend Alberto Gonzales, this article was designed to elicit the exact reaction that David came out with this morning. He's in good company - the first sentence in the post on the article at MSNBC's First Read blog states "An unbelievable accusation against the Justice Department in today's Washington Post".

I was going to write on this, even before reading David's post, primarily because I thought the article was so misleading. The crux of the story is not that the Justice Department attempted to derail the OxyContin case, but that Justice contacted the U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case, John L. Brownlee, to tell him to slow down and not to settle yet! Brownlee ignored the advice, and settled anyway.

What the article fails to mention (because it would put the whole affair in a different light) is that the settlement prevented the filing of criminal charges against the officials of the company, which was the purpose of the entire FDA/Justice Department investigation. The Brownlee settlement allowed criminals involved in the deaths of over 200 people to walk free. That's reason enough to slow settlement negotiations down, as someone at Justice attempted to do. It is true that as a result of the settlement the defendants were fined a huge amount of money. However, last I checked, choosing to pay a fine was not one of the options that a defendant can choose when he or she is prosecuted for criminally causing the death of someone, especially when the deaths number in the hundreds. Based on that alone, the Justice Department was right to try to slow down Brownlee. And right to fire him.

From today's Washington Post comes yet a further example of why the politicization of the Justice Department and the federal prosecutors who "serve at the pleasure of the president" is such a travesty. We already know that when determining the criteria for which prosecutors the president might fire, Justice Department officials considered factors that included whether or not the prosecutor in question was investigating republicans, or refused to pursue bogus voter-fraud charges in hotly-contested districts. Well, add another revelation to the list:

The night before the government secured a guilty plea from the manufacturer of the addictive painkiller OxyContin, a senior Justice Department official called the U.S. attorney handling the case and, at the behest of an executive for the drugmaker, urged him to slow down, the prosecutor told the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday.

John L. Brownlee, the U.S. attorney in Roanoke, testified that he was home the evening of Oct. 24 when he received the call on his cellphone from Michael J. Elston, then chief of staff to the deputy attorney general and one of the Justice aides involved in the removal of nine U.S. attorneys last year.

Brownlee settled the case anyway. Eight days later, his name appeared on a list compiled by Elston of prosecutors that officials had suggested be fired.

You see, being a "loyal Bushie" also means ignoring criminal behavior of pharmaceutical companies. Never mind the public interest, never mind justice, this administration has an agenda to follow, damn the consequences. All that's really surprising is that the pleasures of the president seem to include Oxy.

And not only is he still attorney general, Alberto Gonzales is going even further to tighten political control over U.S. attorneys. So says Andrew Zajac in a Chicago Tribune editorial today:

Atty Gen. Alberto Gonzales so far has survived a political crisis over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, a rare potential vote of no-confidence in the Senate and numerous calls for his resignation.

His response? Gonzales recently proposed tightening the leash on the men and women who prosecute federal crimes across the nation.

Gonzales described what he delicately calls "a more vigorous and a little bit more formal process" for annually evaluating prosecutors. What that means, as he explained it, is hauling in every U.S. attorney for a meeting to hear, among other things, politicians' beefs against the prosecutor.

He's kept his position and is going full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes! Chutzpah like this, up to a certain point, one has to admire. It has a certain suicidal foolishness to it which I find refreshing.

One of the most comical things that came up during Monica Goodling's testimony of the Hill was the uproar over her vetting practices in reviewing Justice Department job applications. Goodling stated that she may have gone a bit too far in determining applicants' political loyalties. The Left quickly turned that into the story, even suggested here at our esteemed blog, that Goodling admitted to breaking the law. Both statements are demonstrably false. No law was broken, and rewarding politically loyal job applicants has a long pedigree. One of the best at doing this, of course, was the Clinton administration. According to the American Spectator:

"We knew the political affiliation of every lawyer and political appointee we hired at the Department of Justice from January 1993 to the end of the Administration," says a former Clinton Department of Justice political appointee. "We kept charts and used them when it came time for new U.S. Attorney nominations, detailee assignments, and other hiring decisions. If you didn't vote Democrat, you weren't going anywhere with us. It was that simple."

In fact, according to this source, at least 25 career DOJ lawyers who were identified as Republicans were shifted away from jobs in offices they held prior to January 1993 and were given new "assignments" which were deemed "noncritical" or "nonpolitically influential." When these jobs shifts came to light in 1993, neither the House nor Senate Judiciary committees chose to pursue an investigation.

The 103rd Congress in 1993 was controlled by the Democrats in both Houses. Even after the Republican takeover in 1994, Congress never chose to investigate this issue -- because there was nothing of substance there. Same as today.

Here's a little highlight (lowlight?) from Monica Goodling's morning in front of the House Judiciary Committee. After pinning the blame for the attorney firings on Paul McNulty, who she also accused of lying to Congress, Ms. Goodling went on to admit that she had personally rejected prospective prosecutors because of their political views.

She can't say whether or not she broke the law. Well, I guess that doesn't speak highly in favor of Pat Robertson's Regent University, where Ms. Goodling earned her law degree. Strange that someone charged with weeding out candidates to serve in one of the most important positions in the nation's law enforcement network would not herself know the rules on what was illegal to ask said candidates. We're still awaiting a response from Mr. McNulty, by the way.

Update: Paul McNulty has released a statement.

"I testified truthfully at the Feb. 6, 2007 hearing based on what I knew at the time. Ms. Goodling's characterization of my testimony is wrong and not supported by the extensive record of documents and testimony already provided to Congress."

In other words, either Goodling or McNulty has, under oath, lied to Congress. Just like their former boss, Mr. Gonzales.

As recently as last week, President George W. Bush expressed his full confidence in Paul Wolfowitz.

He also has confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

For that matter, the president tells us he has full confidence that Iraqi Sunni and Shia factions will reach an amicable political situation.

Where then does that leave us as a nation, when it is clear to most everyone that the commander-in-chief's judgment is so fundamentally off? I'm not only talking about liberal voices, either. Consider the following quote that comes to us today from the Evans-Novack "Political Wire":

The poor Republican morale in Congress, particularly in the House, cannot be exaggerated. Party loyalists there--we refer not only to moderates but staunch conservatives as well--have turned their backs on President George W. Bush and admit that they cannot wait for him and his administration to leave town.

Next week, the Senate, after being lied to again and again, will hold a no-confidence vote on Gonzales. Meanwhile, Wolfowitz is gliding earthward with his $400,000 golden parachute from the World Bank. And the political reconciliation that Mr. Bush has promised for 4 years? Well, some things never change.

Yesterday, fellow Stump blogger Phil Bailey posted here on former Deputy Attorney General James Comey's testimony about the administration's pressuring of then Attorney General John Ashcroft to approve the NSA wiretapping program. After watching the video clip that was also posted, I'm not surprised that Phil (and others) would come to the conclusion he did -- it appears shocking.

But there's a lot more to the story, including the fact that according to Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee staff, James Comey has performed admirably as one of Sen. Chuck Schumer's moles within the Justice Department. He was also one of the people who gave us Patrick Fitzgerald as a special prosecutor to embarrass the administration, and really should never have been in the position he held in the first place, at least not in a Republican administration.

Tuesday's hearing was a passion play put on by Schumer for the media and adoring Democrats. The storyline -- the Bush administration used immoral and covert means to achieve an illegal end -- is the NSA program. There's a little problem with that narrative, however: in testimony not reported on in the media but in the transcript and tape of the hearing, Comey changed his orchestrated tune when being questioned by (no-friend of the president) Sen. Arlen Specter.

I have been trying to figure out why the administration has gone to such lengths to cover up their actions with respect to firing the U.S. attorneys, which by all accounts, they had the right to do for no reason whatsoever. As in all such situations, the question becomes, "What are you trying to hide?" Apparently such actions have not been limited to the U.S. attorneys, but represent the tip of the iceberg, with a wholesale purging from top to bottom. Who is at the center of this problem? Ms. Monica Goodling.

We have already found out how incompetent and weak the Attorney General is and that is horribly disconcerting in this day and age. So if he wasn't/isn't running the Justice Department, who is? Now that the courts have officially granted immunity to Monica Goodling and she will be forced to testify before Congress, we may find out a little more. Since Ms. Goodling is a self-professed Christian, we can only assume that she will tell the truth when testifying under subpoena.

Ms. Goodling arrived at the Justice Department as a 31-year-old attorney who had worked for the Republican National Committee during the 2000 campaign as an opposition researcher. She graduated in 1999 from Regent University School of Law, Pat Robertson's law school, whose graduates now permeate the Justice Department. For the record, this law school is considered a fourth tier law school. With her one year of experience post graduation, Ms. Goodling arrived in the Justice Department as a "deeply religious and politically conservative individual who seemed to believe that part of her job was to bring people with similar values into the Justice Department." And so the purge began. She is currently being investigated by the department's inspector general and ethics office, as well as Congress. She moved up rapidly and became the White House Liaison, earning $133,000 a year. With that move, she insisted on retaining her power to review hiring of assistant U.S. attorneys.

Now I'm beginning to understand what their fear is... This country is run on the rule of law, with appropriate checks and balances in built into the system. Separation of church and state is a key component that our founding fathers believed in strongly. We have to believe and have faith, if you will, that such laws are administered, to the degree possible, in a fair and neutral manner. When the truth comes out about the politicization/religious infiltration of the Justice Department, the damage to the reputation of the Justice Department will take a long time to repair.

It's deja vu all over again. The president assuring America of his confidence in an appointee who has clearly shown himself to be lacking in the qualities necessary to do the job. By now, we have compiled a rogues list: Michael Brown, Harriet Miers, Donald Rumsfeld. Bush was for each of these people, too, before he was against them. So why should it surprise us that the president seems to be the only person on the planet who thinks that Alberto Gonzales did a heck-uva job in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week?

The president said that Gonzales' testimony before skeptical Judiciary Committee senators last week "increased my confidence" in his ability to lead the Justice Department. Separately, a White House spokeswoman said, "He's staying."

Hooray for loyalty! Even in the face of Gonzales' mind-boggling testimony (watch some of it here) -- which showed the AG to be, at worst, a liar and, at best, a dreadful administrator--the president will not bow to pressure and hire someone who can actually run the Department of Justice in the proper fashion. It's about saving face, about refusing to be pushed around by Congress, and, regrettably, about cementing his legacy as leader who has made one bad decision after another. But the "nothing-to-see-here" approach to governing is long gone. What's amazing is that no one seems to have told the commander-in-chief. More and more his time in office is becoming synonymous with a single word: incompetence.

Poor personnel decisions have a way of rippling through an organization. Yesterday, three Deputy U.S. attorneys and an executive assistant in the state of Minnesota demoted themselves. Why? They did it to protest the incompetence of the newly-appointed U.S. attorney, Rachel Paulose, who was formerly a top assistant to Attorney General Gonzales and reported best friend of -- are you ready??? -- Monica Goodling. You know, the former White House liaison to A.G. Gonzales who refused to testify before Congress about the U.S. attorney debacle on the grounds that such testimony might incriminate her (taking the "5th"). The one who resigned on Friday from the Justice Department with no further explanation. (But hey, in her resignation note, she wished Mr. Gonzalez continued blessings from God. He's going to need them.)

Jeanne F. Cooney, a spokeswoman for the Minneapolis office, said on Friday that John Marti, the top assistant prosecutor; Erika R. Mozangue, chief of the office's civil division; and James E. Lackner, head of the office's criminal division, had returned to their prosecutorial jobs. Ms. Cooney said Ms. Paulose would have no comment.

The decisions by the three prosecutors to step down came after a career prosecutor assigned to the Justice Department's United States attorney liaison office flew to Minneapolis on Thursday to meet with the prosecutors and Ms. Paulose in an unsuccessful effort to mediate the conflict.

Who is Ms. Paulose? A loyal Bushie, of course. She reportedly likes to quote Bible verses around the office and she likes to berate her employees in front of others around the office. Her dictatorial style and ideological agenda were apparently too much for her staff. I guess the Golden Rule is not part of her biblical teachings.

Yes, the president has the right to appoint and/or remove whomever he wants as U.S. attorney. These are political jobs and (like ambassadors) are often or always rewards for loyalty to the current administration. However, it would be nice if competence and qualifications were at least a consideration for key positions (like head of FEMA, Attorney General, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, etc., etc., etc.)

According to several reports, a senior Justice Dept official is testifying behind closed doors to congressional committees.

Elston and three officials _ a personal lawyer and Justice Department aides _ entered the House Judiciary Committee's suite just after 10 a.m. EDT Friday for what aides predicted would be five hours of interviews. Elston was not expected to be sworn during Friday's interview, but he has agreed to testify voluntarily under oath and in public.

FIVE hours of testimony? On a Friday? What's going on?

Rumors, only rumors to date, are that Karl Rove and Harriet Miers may testify as early as next week, behind closed doors with a transcript but not under oath. If true (and I'm still looking for confirmation) it means the end of one of Bush's closest pals, who without much ceremony has been thrown under the bus. Gonzales meanwhile is defending himself and today said :

"I signed off on the recommendations and signed off on the implementation plan, and that's the extent of my involvement," he told reporters.

Well, if someone's the boss and they signed off then they are accountable. If their aides do something behind their back and they didn't know, that's a defense. Knowing and approving is not. Something's going on. At the very least negotiations for how it will go down next week. Like lawyers meeting before the event to handle the plea bargaining.

First, let's do a brief review of how the Justice Dept is supposed to work. It has a dual charge. To be the government's lawyer but also be the place that, in most cases, keeps the government clean. Unless there's a conflict of interest and an outside counsel is appointed to investigate a mess (like Patrick Fitzgerald), the Justice Dept is supposed to be "Mr. Clean." The 93 AG's are important people and they are political appointees (appointed by the president) but they are most often experienced prosecutors. Yes, incoming presidents will appoint their "team" but rarely will they make lots of changes during a term.

The difference here is the changes were made for political reasons and then they 'mis-led' lied about it. The difference here is that once again we see a government malfunctioning because the principle architects of this presidency (apparently Cheney and Rove) don't give a damn about the Constitution, duties and responsibilities, or morality. In fact, when the 'mistakes' lies were coming to light, several Republicans could not understand what the fuss was about. They're so tied into the Imperial presidency concept that another scandal involving politics where it shouldn't be confuses them.

What's interesting about this mess is the Bush loyalist who is supposed to take the fall (Gonzo's chief of staff Kyle Sampson) is making noises about not going quietly. Why? Because he doesn't think he did anything wrong even though he was forced to resign. He had been touted as Rove's heir apparent and he doesn't want to lose that title. Why? Because, like Rove, he believes anything is OK as long as you win an election. Anything. Wiretapping opponents? OK. Massive trolling surveillance of Americans? OK. Investigations of office holders based on innuendo? OK. Having Senators and Congressional Reps call the district AGs about current investigations. OK.

Let me give but one example of what kind of rats we have running things. Before Rove had a reputation, when he was first getting involved in campaigns he was in Chicago for a DA's race (irony). He walked into the Democratic campaign office, pretended to be a volunteer and apparently took a lot of campaign stationary with him. Shortly thereafter, fliers printed on the stationary turned up in areas where homeless, drunks, and prostitutes gathered promising free food and booze at the Dem HQ. The tatic didn't work but it speaks volumes. Worst. president. Ever.

More reading: Sampson investigative reporting Rove Justice Dept Rove

ABC News is reporting that Karl Rove had some input into the firings of US Attorneys:

New unreleased emails from top administration officials show the idea of firing all 93 U.S. attorneys was raised by Karl Rove in early January 2005, indicating Rove was more involved in the plan than previously acknowledged by the White House. The emails also show Alberto Gonzales discussed the idea of firing the attorneys en masse while he was still White House counsel-weeks before he was confirmed as attorney general.

This is supposed to be some great revelation and I'll tell you why it's not. First, the U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president. Should he want to remove them, he has the right as the duly elected leader of our nation. Second, one should hope that before he makes a decision to fire said attorneys, he would consult with his chief adviser and counsel. That only makes sense. The Democrats must be really discouraged they just have not been smart enough to catch Rove in something... anything!

This would be a real story if he fired, say, Patrick Fitzgerald in the midst of the Scooter Libby investigation. That would be akin to when Clinton fired a U.S. attorney looking into Whitewater or another who was preparing to file charges against disgraced (and pardoned) Clinton crony Dan Rostenkowski. In Bush's case of course, it didn't happen.